White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

FOXNews.com

Friday, October 23, 2009

failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks "ought not to treat them that way."

The decision to boycott the Feinberg interview unless Fox News was included was cheered by media analysts, who said the administration's gambit was taking its feud with Fox News too far. President Obama has already declined to go on "Fox News Sunday," even while appearing on the other Sunday shows.

"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, calling the move to limit Feinberg's availability "outrageous."

"What it's really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy -- we know this -- only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information," he said.

Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. said the administration was potentially in violation of the Constitution with its attempt to restrict access to the "eyes and ears" of the country.

"What was averted was a very serious Constitutional violation by the White House," he said. "There cannot be selective and arbitrary access to the White House based on some subjective determination."

Several top White House advisers have appeared on other news channels to criticize Fox News' coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news network.

On Wednesday, Obama, speaking publicly for the first time about his administration's portrayal of Fox News as illegitimate, said he's not "losing sleep" over the controversy.

"I think that what our advisers simply said is, is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama said when asked about his advisers targeting the network openly. "And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."

House Republican leaders rushed to the defense of conservative commentators Thursday after the comments.

Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said conservative commentators speak more for Americans than the national media outlets that have targeted them for criticism.

"Goaded on by a White House increasingly intolerant of criticism, lately the national media has taken aim at conservative commentators in radio and television," the Indiana Republican said on the House floor. "Suggesting that they only speak for a small group of activists and even suggesting in one report today that Republicans in Washington are 'worried about their electoral effect.' Well, that's hogwash."

Where was I... oh yes.. I say he's a lying POS.

Kudos to the other networks for standing up for doing the right thing.

while i don't think Fox should have been excluded, i can't say i blame the admin either. instead of trying to isolate Fox, they should make it a point to appear so that they at least have the chance to present their side. short of that makes it seems like they have something to hide and don't want to go on there to be outed.

Pure spin. Of course they shouldn't have been excluded, and of course the admin. deserves the blame. This does not mean that elements within FNN are not being antagonistic, but that's part of their job when the ultimate goal is ratings.

Support from the other networks means nothing to me, however, as they're only looking out for their own.

As I said before, I don't know what the WH intends to gain from its public spat with FoxNews, but it's not worth the trouble.

The issue is not that FOX News is critical of the Democratic party and everything Obama. The issue is that they are critical simply to be critical. Their boss (Ailes) has publicly acknowledged that their main mission shall be to criticize Obama's policies, no matter what they are, and hence they have lost all objectivity.

FOX News network is no longer merely reporting the news. They are creating the news by promoting controversial events before they have taken place (e.g., tea-bagging, 9/12 rallies), promoting fear and hatred against a subset of the population (e.g., portraying all illegal aliens as violent vermin, demonizing abortion clinic physicians) and proselytizing a specific agenda with the stated goal of assisting the GOP in its desire to play the role of obstructionist in Congress. In addition, they will filter out any story that they perceive will cast a positive light on Obama's administration.

They have reduced themselves to be a propaganda tool for the conservative base. That is certainly their right, but they lose the right to claim "fair and balanced" and to behave self-righteous and indignant when called out on it.

Fox News and MSNBC are pretty much mirror images of each other. This is why Obama has no credibility. Instead of decrying the vitriole that one can find on mulitple cable news stations, he singles out only the one that disagrees with him the most. Hannity and Olbmerman are of the same ilk. Maddow seems to buy into the "vast right-wing conspiracy" theory, so how does that make her much better than Beck?

I watch Fox News along with CNN, but I pretty much never watch Glenn Beck or Hannity. I watch O'Reilly occasionally and in reality they don't have much to gripe about with him other than he allows Beck on his program. But I have seen O'Reilly say the "birthers" are nonsense and defend Obama on several fronts. You can argue that the rest of Fox is slanted and perhaps it is, but no more than the other networks who seem to ingore, minimize or excuse much of what the Democrats do.

That's just ridiculous. That's like saying urbandictionary.com is as valid as Websters. Fox is to news what ebonics is to literature.Posted by movingtarget2

The point is other "news" agencies that Obama likes have an agenda as well and often employ the same type of logic-challenged, partisan commentary that Obama hates on with Fox. This makes Obama a hypocrit. Keith Olbermann was invited personally to the White House for an "off the record" chat with the powers that be. This is nothing new, but does any body really think Olbermann is a straight news guy? And the problem with Olbermann isn't that he is a lefty, but he is filled with hatred and disdain for anyone on the right.

If Obama thinks open partisanship in the news is wrong, then it is wrong on both sides, on every network. For Obama to call out one side and cater to the other makes independents and those who lean right take a step back from future support.

In Response to Re: Some say Obama ISN'T a media control freak.. but I say... : The point is other "news" agencies that Obama likes have an agenda as well and often employ the same type of logic-challenged, partisan commentary that Obama hates on with Fox. Posted by sanityman

Their agenda is to do as good a job with a light news show as can be done while maximizing ad revenue. Fox's agenda is political, one-sided, and to make as entertaining a broadcast as possible so as to maximize ad revenue.

The MSM has partisan commentary when they get a demo and a rep to comment on the same story. Fox has partisan commentary every time the "news" anchor opens his mouth. Big difference. One is reporting, the other is dogma.

In Response to Re: Some say Obama ISN'T a media control freak.. but I say... : If Obama thinks open partisanship in the news is wrong, then it is wrong on both sides, on every network. For Obama to call out one side and cater to the other makes independents and those who lean right take a step back from future support.Posted by sanityman

It would be if your analysis were true. Its not.

You can lump Olbermann in with all the Foxies and while I'd disagree I don't feel its the most important problem with your analysis. Stating that the major networks have a political agenda is just ignorant and dangerous.

In Response to Re: Some say Obama ISN'T a media control freak.. but I say... : What news? And its not dissenting views they dislike, its the disengenuous reality.Posted by movingtarget2

I watch MSNBC, CNN, and go back and forth between NBC, CBS, and ABC. What I can't figure out is why none of these networks have ever done a story exposing FOX for the false stories that they get accused of all the time. I would think these stations would out them for the lies they are accused of reporting.

In Response to Re: Some say Obama ISN'T a media control freak.. but I say... : I watch MSNBC, CNN, and go back and forth between NBC, CBS, and ABC. What I can't figure out is why none of these networks have ever done a story exposing FOX for the false stories that they get accused of all the time. I would think these stations would out them for the lies they are accused of reporting.Posted by hawkeye01

MSNBC does (Olbermann and Maddow). Nightly. CNN wants to be Fox, and the major networks have never made it their business what Fox does.

If FOX isn't a real news source, is ACORN worthy of government funding? Can't have both ways hypocrites. Don't forget that little 1st Amendment distraction, Freedom of Press. We can disagree with what people say, worship, and demonstrate for, but it's all protected. Makes you wonder if the messiah recognizes our own laws...if so, he'll apologize for that too.Posted by s0ftsquash

How has Fox's 1st Amendment right been violated.

I'll wait.....................

(Target dishes to Greg and Greg.... Greg..... Greg goes for a line change)

That's just ridiculous. That's like saying urbandictionary.com is as valid as Websters. Fox is to news what ebonics is to literature.Posted by movingtarget2

It's early in his administration and I understand his priority of bankrupting the country via health care but don't underestimate HIS plan to elevate ebonics. Move over Shakespeare, there's a new sherriff in town.

In Response to Re: Some say Obama ISN'T a media control freak.. but I say... : MSNBC does (Olbermann and Maddow). Nightly. CNN wants to be Fox, and the major networks have never made it their business what Fox does.Posted by movingtarget2

I was referring to the news shows. Not the entertainer shows like Olbermann and Maddow. I would think it would be part of the news if FOX were spreading outright lies. Like what happened with Dan Rather. That made the news, not just the entertainer shows.

I've never seen a news show on Fox. When is it? Should I say was?On the rare occassion I'm home watching TV during business hours I rarely would have occassion to watch Fox. I seem to recall being home sick during the Gaza incursion and once made a point to watch Fox as opposed to other channels which tried way too hard to be "fair" and "balanced" in their coverage. It was disgusting to see them stretch so far to try to suggest there are two sides to the story. I dislike that attribute of all TV news. Reporting is not the same as analysis and reporting can not educate the uneducated. Its one of my pet peeves and the main reason why I'm a news junkie. There are facts (reporting) and then there's explanation (analysis and commentary). Fox is all analysis, which when impartial can be a good thing. But Fox is not impartial.

I'll never understand the infatuation with Rather. They got bad information and CBS made a mistake trying to "break news". Fox has a Rather moment several times a day.

In Response to Re: Some say Obama ISN'T a media control freak.. but I say... : It's early in his administration and I understand his priority of bankrupting the country via health care but don't underestimate HIS plan to elevate ebonics. Move over Shakespeare, there's a new sherriff in town. Posted by Ohhhhh-Bammy

The major reason for healthcare reform is to prevent the bankrupting of the country. Must you always be so blatently wrong?

but don't underestimate HIS plan to elevate ebonics. ======================================================If Obama is trying to elevate "ebonics", I need some proof. (I nee' so' proo'.) There's no way to elevate it. All you have to do is drop the last consonant from every word. (Ah you ha' t do i dro' ev' consa' fro' ev' wor'.) It's so simple, you couldn't possibly elevate it.

I've never seen a news show on Fox. When is it? Should I say was ? On the rare occassion I'm home watching TV during business hours I rarely would have occassion to watch Fox. I seem to recall being home sick during the Gaza incursion and once made a point to watch Fox as opposed to other channels which tried way too hard to be "fair" and "balanced" in their coverage. It was disgusting to see them stretch so far to try to suggest there are two sides to the story. I dislike that attribute of all TV news. Reporting is not the same as analysis and reporting can not educate the uneducated. Its one of my pet peeves and the main reason why I'm a news junkie. There are facts (reporting) and then there's explanation (analysis and commentary). Fox is all analysis, which when impartial can be a good thing. But Fox is not impartial. I'll never understand the infatuation with Rather. They got bad information and CBS made a mistake trying to "break news". Fox has a Rather moment several times a day.Posted by movingtarget2

I think the "infatuation" with Rather is that he/they didn't vet it. Once the doc was analyzed it was painfully obvious how fake it was. A new organization should be better than that. What has FOX done that is comparable to what Rather did? Thanks!

In Response to Re: Some say Obama ISN'T a media control freak.. but I say... : The major reason for healthcare reform is to prevent the bankrupting of the country. Must you always be so blatently wrong? Read what George H. W. Bush has to say on the matter. http://www.nchc.org/Posted by movingtarget2

You either understate or don't want to recognize what this bill means. It's a tax on working people to subsidize the deadbeats and illegals. George who?